Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Ram Narain v. Murat And Others

Ram Narain v. Murat And Others

(Supreme Court Of India)

Criminal Appeal No. 397 Of 2001 (Arising Out Of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 3372 Of 2000) | 30-03-2001

Leave granted.

2. The complainant is in appeal against the order of learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court in exercise of powers under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashed the pending proceedings initiated under S. 3(i)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The impugned judgment indicates that the High Court came to a conclusion that the petitioner before it was in possession of the land bearing Plot Nos. 72, 73 and 74, and on that basis interferred with the criminal proceedings. There is no. finding of any competent forum that the petitioner before the High Court, namely Murat and others arein possession of disputed plots, and on the other hand, a civil suit is pending before the Civil Court. That being the position, the High Court was in error in assuming that Murat and others were in possession of the land, and on that erroneous assumption interferred and quashed the criminal proceedngs. This, on the face of it, is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passedby the High Court and direct the criminal proceedings may go on the accordance with law.

3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Advocate List
  • For
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE G. B. PATTANAIK
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE U. C. BANERJEE
Eq Citations
  • AIR 2002 SC 2417
  • (2002) 9 SCC 705
  • 2001 (3) CRIMES 363 (SC)
  • LQ/SC/2001/894
Head Note

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 — Quashment of criminal proceedings under S. 3(i)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Without finding of any competent forum that the petitioner before the High Court, namely Murat and others were in possession of disputed plots, and on the other hand, a civil suit was pending before the Civil Court — High Court in error in assuming that Murat and others were in possession of the land, and on that erroneous assumption quashment of criminal proceedings — Held, High Court was in excess of its jurisdiction — Impugned order set aside and criminal proceedings directed to go on in accordance with law (Paras 2 and 3)